(1.) Aggrieved by Order dated 20.9.2014, Annexure P-1, by which the Petitioner has been ordered to be retired from service of the Border Security Force invoking the provisions of Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules of 1969").
(2.) Brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in October, 2005 under the Respondents. Having put in more than 9 years of service, he was issued with a Show Cause Notice dated 10.7.2014 under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1969. The said Show Cause Notice was issued seeking explanation from Petitioner as to why he should not be retired from service considering his service record. To the said Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner submitted his reply on 13.8.2014. Immediately, thereafter, yet another Show Cause Notice dated 14.8.2014 was issued to Petitioner again calling for his explanation as to why he should not be retired from service considering his record, to which also the Petitioner gave his reply on 17.8.2014. Considering the contentions that the Petitioner raised in his reply, after due consideration of his entire service record, the Respondents have issued the impugned Order, Annexure P-1, dated 20.9.2014, retiring the Petitioner from services of the Border Security Force, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
(3.) Contention of Petitioner assailing the order of retirement is that the order has been passed with a vindictive approach as the superior officers are not happy with Petitioner. Likewise, the order again is an illegal and arbitrary order which has been passed without application of mind. According to Petitioner, there was no strong substantial material available for Respondents to have retired him prematurely. According to him, there was no strong case available with Respondents against him by which he could have been declared unsuitable so as to invoke Rule 26 of the Rules of 1969 for retiring him from service.